because Doctor should be male because he’s always been can be a shorthand statement for everything else that an an individual may value about this character…

in which case they’re confusing character with gender and assuming, possibly, that certain characteristics are inferred from this Doctor’s maleness…..which is central to the problem.

I think it was last night that Dad saw I was on the net after 10.30 and tonight it’s worse .I have an annoying cold which is causing me to ramble and be feverish! I do know Dad’s going to attach a gadget which switches off the internet from the family computer! Eek. I have to bribe him with something else….

in the case of Judaism itself has roots into earlier religions, essentially in pre-history, which are little known.

Does it?

Yes. It evolved out of polytheistic religions that pre-existed it and merged elements of that and other middle eastern religions before it came into existence. Yahweh had a wife at one time for example. Even then, what is generally considered to be the key elements of the religion (The Torah for example) weren’t written in their current form until much later and were influenced by interaction with Zoroastrianism in Babylonia. Nothing exists in isolation.

Most of what I know comes from watching documentaries over the years, so is limited in nature. It is covered on wikipedia, but I dont know any good starter books on this topic (or I’d read them myself).

I think, that the Doctor’s character, in its fullest sense, is broad enough to encompass gender change. My point is that if someone else doesn’t believe that to be true, who are we to criticise them for thinking something different, let alone call them misogynist.

@wolfweed That interview at Supercon is one of the best I’ve seen — *good* questions and time to answer at some length. Thanks so much. And in the middle of it, there’s the answer to my earlier question: one way that PC sees himself as a “type” of actor is as a somewhat bigger-than-life figure in a B-movie, which I *think* means a natural for the big bold stuff like the Zygon speech, and the face off with the Half-faced Man, and the final battle with the cybermen; which de-emphasizes his skill and delicacy at doing more subtle work, often physical — gesture, expression — rather than verbal, which has been even more effective IMO, because I don’t expect that in heroic adventurers. There wasn’t, as I recall, anything subtle about, say, Stewart Granger in “King Solomon’s Mines” (I hope I’m remembering that one correctly).

But then, when you’ve got writers like SM and his crowd, and a hero with a big brain, two hearts, and a screw driver, there’s a sort of open invitation, I think, to draw that out of an actor who has it in him to bring in the first place. It’s interesting, too, that PC has the same trouble trying to describe what it is about DW that makes it resonate unusually deeply for different viewers at different points — I can’t either, although I suspect it has a lot to do with something in the story maps onto powerful personal experience for watchers who get caught up into it that way.

@thane15 Moreover, women are poorly rendered by non-Christians too who find pronoun creep hard to avoid and call, during the “is the Doctor a man?” discussion the actress Jodie Whitakker merely “Jodie” and yet frame the debate about Capaldi using his full name -which might be a cosmetic concern but is part of on-going equality issues.

Yes, this was very noticeable in some of the earlier reactions. The heartening thing is that the discrepancy in how their names were treated was pointed out by several posters (here and there), with no justifications offered, because it was so damned obvious that there are none.

@ichabod and @thane15 I confess to avoiding using “Jodie Whitakker” surname simply because I am terrible at spelling and usually too lazy to google it, especially when posting late at night. I know how to spell Capaldi though I generally use the abbreviation P.C. just as I often now use J.W. My shorthand however varies depending upon how much time I have, how tired I am, or how the person in question is referred to in other posts. Just as right now I am being inexcusably lazy and replying to the last comment showing on my page because I have not had time for over a week to keep up. With the prospect of a free weekend before me I hope to make amends for that.

I think, that the Doctor’s character, in its fullest sense, is broad enough to encompass gender change. My point is that if someone else doesn’t believe that to be true, who are we to criticise them for thinking something different, let alone call them misogynist.

But you’re happy to criticise those who don’t believe that the theory of evolution is ‘true’? As I said on another thread, we’ve had men playing women’s parts for thousands of years. And yet a woman comes along to play a previously male role and it’s ‘who are we to call them misogynist?’ 😀

No, they might not be misogynist; they may simply not want that part of their childhood to change quite that much. They do, however, lay themselves open to charges of misogyny because the effect of ‘not changing’ is misogynist. It’s a bit like the people arguing that there are black people in Thin Ice – folks, did you not notice the time-travelling alien and the giant monster under the Thames? We’re really not talking about an accurate historical recreation …

The effect of saying that people of colour can’t turn up in historical episodes is to deny certain actors roles in a fantasy story – on the basis of their skin colour. Especially since what we think we know about the history probably isn’t true – like when Mark Gatiss discovered that there was at least one black British soldier in the Zulu wars (fortunately just before he fired off the email complaining about casting a black actor).

Similarly, to say that the Doctor cannot be a woman has the effect of denying any actor who is female the chance to even be seen – for a role in a fantasy drama. Or soft SF, if you like, but soft SF with a species of shape changing aliens. Apparently it’s okay for a man to play a Greek goddess, but not okay for a woman to play a Gallfreyan Time Lord … 😈

You can accuse me of wanting to have my cake and eat it 🙂 However I think there is a difference between something that can be proven to be factually correct in an absolute sense (evolution) and something which is subjective and unproven (unproveable even).

They do, however, lay themselves open to charges of misogyny because the effect of ‘not changing’ is misogynist

I have not said that they don’t – I say that jumping to a conclusion before speaking with them is a mistake. It’s the same sort of argument that is often trotted out that if you want to talk about immigration – that you must be xenophobic or racist. It reduces any debate to the lowest possible place, without even commencing any discussion.

Since we both believe in equality, do you think that all of the women who have posted that they don’t like the idea of a female Doctor or have strong reservations about the idea are just as automatically open to the charge of misogyny ?

I agree with you, anyone making a statement that it is impossible to cast a Women as the Doctor or any other character, real or not – such as Churchill – , must automatically have rather dubious motives, although I would still want to ask them to explain their reasoning.

It is the same in respect of casting a non-white person into a “white” role. The only get out of jail card I can think of is that the writer/director are attempting to be absolutely period correct in their casting decisions. Even then, its not very likely to end up with an all white cast in many circumstances. For example, the vast majority of non-white members of the British Army in Victorian times would most likely be found in colonial army units. In addition, I would expect to find that there would be a number of people with mixed-ethnicity in “white” only units (probably more in the junior ranks of the Navy ?) and in colonial units. There would even be a small number of women.

Any one paying attention to the TV coverage ought to have spotted the names of the Indian Soldiers carved on the Menin Gate during the commemoration of the Third Battle of Ypres. It was very obvious on the BBC TV pictures. I’m sure that there are also some Nepali names there too, alongside British, Irish, Australian, South Africa, Canadian and West Indian names (and other nationalities no doubt).

Goodness Ms Janette and Ms Ichi, I wasn’t implying that you had used Whitaker’s name wrong compared with Capaldi (I think I’ve just spelled her name wrong myself) just that I noticed on the first thread and on youtube (terrible place must stop going there!) there were name ‘callings’ which were regularly done but I think, or hope, people with good intentions don’t continue to make mistakes like that in future. One Forum member, though, I’m looking at you buddy! 🙂 But that’s OK -part of learning, even a person’s in their 70s re-learns about changing those gender creep issues (my uncle for example) but it was a male friend in his 40s who pointed that out to me in the first place and not a female and that’s interesting.

@nick you were speaking of misogyny in women? I think some of the worst misogynists I’ve come across are women unfortunately.

I also point out that, using @bluesqueakpip‘s term, I was referring to people being “open to charges of it” because if it’s this point which I mentioned above: “the Doctor is a man and that’s how it’s always been thus it needs to continue to be because I grew up with this Doctor, he became a role model for me, my two sons but in the future their grandsons won’t have that”- (type of thing) that, I believe is close to misogyny.

For something continuing to be ‘because it always has” -particularly this concept, when you dig deep generally ends up in the Land of Misogyny. I don’t want to throw that term around wildly Nick and I know neither you nor @bluesqueakpip would either. I know the latter to be a very educated person with post graduate studies amongst other things and a heck of a good thinker, witnessed in the various blogs she’s written in the past and would probably agree that it’s unwise to lay charges of misogyny wherever, for the sake of it?

Thing is, role models are everywhere, they just need to be found. Not changing something, in this show, for instance, for the sake of tradition, if I could say is pure bollocks! The entire show broke with tradition and continues to (before this shocking announcement) all the time. A female producer, a female composer of one of the best theme tracks ever (I have as yet to find one as good and I think Mum might agree -though not entirely sure there) and a set-up right from the 1970s in the show where a woman could be a Time Lord.

If people claim: “he’s always male and should be now” what are they really trying to say, is my question?

What is it, about this alien, with two hearts that has to make it a male alien?

I’ve not heard any comments supporting a male Doctor except it’s ‘tradition’ and I reckon on all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that the early writers of the show in the 1960s would’ve wanted a female Doctor within 15 years of the show’s start. I think they’d say not only “it’s about time” but: “why didn’t you quokkas think of this earlier?” 😀

I have not said that they don’t – I say that jumping to a conclusion before speaking with them is a mistake. It’s the same sort of argument that is often trotted out that if you want to talk about immigration – that you must be xenophobic or racist. It reduces any debate to the lowest possible place, without even commencing any discussion.

Any discussion of evolution is usually primed to start an argument of very right and very left -as you indicate and I agree that it is difficult. There are columnists here like Tim Flannery who doesn’t believe in over-populating Australia and people might assume he’s some “arrogant right winger” when he’s quite the opposite -calm, sensible, an anthropologist, who, when discussing his brief, explained how soils in Australia cannot support the large scale stock that European countries can etc…

If a person talks about the Doctor as a male, I agree Nick, you listen to them fully and ask them the questions gently not in ‘attack dog mode.’

Now, I’ve done that loads of times and read some highly literate answers from all sorts of people and in the end they use the comments I made above: tradition, role models and your question:

Isn’t biology an important element in generating character ?

I’m nowhere near a biologist (but Mum did study it at school and some at uni so I could ask her about that) and so I’m not qualified to say but I think biology generates people -with x & Y chromosomes and people will inherit traits from their parents. Mum can’t sew despite her mum being amazing and sewing everything. Years ago when Mum was partying hard in Sydney and staying with my uncle she got home at dawn & he was sewing curtains -on his mum’s really antique machine having never watched her or shown interest -so nurture/nature? There’s always lots to argue about! 😈

But I don’t think that’s the point in this discussion.

What qualities does this Doctor possess that make him uniquely male?

In other words why should Doctor Who be male?

Then try and & connect the answers people give to this question & see if they’re open to ‘charges’ of misogynist thinking?

I think people argue along the lines of: he has always been a doctor, he’s role model for boys, he’s got qualities of anger; intellect, emotion; multi-tasking; snogging a lot (or did); using his mind to help a situation and not weapons (though he did kill the cybermen with his sonic in the last episode); he’s crafty (see the Witches Familiar in Season 9) and can be too angry and too egotistical (The Runaway Bride with the Doctor losing his temper with the Spider Lady whose children were being killed & Donna stopped him). The latter was obvious in The Waters of Wars and others where RTD was making the Doctor obvious as the “forgotten last god” and Time Lord Victorious which was a facet he explored well and we were shown the awful consequences of that behaviour.

All of the above qualities can easily be shown in a female doctor -many other ideas that I;ve not mentioned also, in my opinion. Perhaps others with a much brighter mind than my own can contribute here?

@thane15 . . . people argue along the lines of: he has always been a doctor, he’s role model for boys

He’s also been a role model *for girls* — ask them at conventions and such, and while some will claim a companion as their inspiration, many will claim this or that Doctor even more so. If an alien with a time machine, a sonic screwdriver, a massively capable if somewhat dippy mind, who presents as male can be a role model for both boys and girls, what’s to prevent the same alien, presenting as female for a change, to still be — a role model for both boys and girls? The qualities you describe will still be there to inspire us, so what on earth is the problem? Looks to me as if there isn’t one — unless you’re a person who worries about boys who admire heroic women somehow catching “female cooties” through the TV screen and being “turned gay” (or maybe just — gay-ish?) by this “unhealthy” admiration for a gender-switchable alien hero who is sometimes (*gasp*!) female.

Or — something else, that I’m missing? I await enlightenment. Meanwhile, I know what attitude strikes me as unhealthy in just about every way possible, and it’s not the attitude of curiosity about seeing what a female actor will bring to the role of the Doctor. If that sounds a bit harsh, humor me; I’ve been poking around at reddit and Fansided, and the arguments against Whittaker that I’ve seen there are largely just — puerile.

Yes, I agree! This place is a ‘spoiler’ in itself -in a good way @craig 😀 The arguments here, even if they are contrary present detailed arguments regarding a particular opinion with some frustration and occasional anger thrown in the ingredient mix (which is totally mum on occasion!) but always sincere working towards understanding something better.

I’ve read and been to those places too <shiver> 🙁 It’s like a sci-fi novel I read a few months ago where if you flew over a certain place you met a completely alien set of humans with different ways of living and it was pretty terrifying and one had to avoid capture -they would take silver or gold from your teeth and any ‘add ons’ in order to collect metal for weaponry.

Some great people here introduced me to sci-fi which was or has been great reading for me. Some write of a world completely similar to our own now where different factions exist playing down women’s roles completely to a gender based/baby machine concept. Also I was beginning the series of a Handmaid’s Tale -only seen a small bit (25 mins yet) but I’ve also been told (suggestion) to read the book from @pedant and you also mentioned her (Atwood) or if not if could have been @arbutus. Anyway, wonderful stuff although really complicated for me in respect of vocabulary.

Back to the thing,

Or — something else, that I’m missing? I await enlightenment.

Me too. I d0n’t know what it is. But the question I posed up above and then the sub-question is the issue which interests me. Mum has said things along the lines of Feminism shouldn’t be viewed as a ideology and I put my hand up and said “stop. you’re going too fast” but then I got loads of books chucked at me metaphorically. They are all in my room now (drat that!) and they are very very long: for the holidays I think as I have other novels for school work I must read with the typical 10 questions per chapter and the answers can all be googled which was a bit silly by the teacher. The book is so bad that the googling is less predictable.

So if women themselves think that the Doctor is a man and should be because he always has then the argument becomes difficult. To me it goes back to that question “why can’t he be a she?” Exactly what is stopping it?

If people become angry that’s one thing but if people can’t answer (below) then go ‘silent’ that’s even worse because it possibly proves or suggests that they can’t find the words to explain why which is also worse because it means they’re struggling to envision the words to explain a change that has no reason they can’t adjust to?

@thane15 and @ichabod I have pondered over your 2 questions because I feel they are very important to this whole debate over a female Doctor. I have no problem with a female Doctor and I am excited to see what adventures she has in the universe. To me it is a simple matter of what the show runner and writers have in store for us and I go along for the ride. The ride may be great and fun or not but I won’t know until I go on it.

So what qualities does a male Doctor have that are unique to his “maleness”? In my opinion there are none. Being brave- mothers will face down a bear to save a child. Heroic- tell all the women serving their countries, fighting fires or crime. Strong- female atheletes. Adventuress- Amelia Earhart, mountain climbers and other extreme sports. Strong Leaders- Hillary Clinton, Thatcher,May and every female CEO. I think that there are no longer any need for gender specific roles or qualities in a modern society.

My opinion then would be that the Doctor can be any gender and still be able to have and show the morals, ethics and qualities that we love and expect from our favourite alien being. To say that a female Doctor would be less in some way is slightly discouraging to a Grandmother of 2 wonderful girls. When I tell them that they can be anyone and do anything they want , I want that to be true.

Absolutely, I concur – a totally great answer Winston. One day , like in about 45 years, if I have kids and they’re girls they should be able to do anything at any time as long as they are at peace, content and passionate.

The hilarious confusion would ensue when the middle-aged white male tried to take charge. I know some people didn’t like Broadchurch, but part of the dynamic between the two detectives was that the woman had just had the man promoted over her head.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Chris Chibnall decided to play with that from the other side – the dynamic when a middle-aged white male suddenly finds he’s got an (apparently) much younger female boss.

True. But also a couple of awards for Best Soap Actor, and a nomination for playing the detective in Law and Order. I think one Chris Chibnall was the showrunner for Series One?

My instinctive reaction is that they’ve cast him in either a guest spot or maybe as a recurring character, and the Mirror is talking it up as ‘new companion’. He’s done a guest spot in the Sarah Jane Adventures, so it isn’t actually that big a leap.

Or he’s a companion in the sense that Matt Lucas and Bernard Cribbins were both recurring characters with Companion status, even though they weren’t the full-time ‘official’ companion.

It’s an interesting choice, that’s for sure. But I think Pip’s right in that he’s going to be a ‘secondary’ companion — I’d say less Nardole and maybe more like Wilf or Brian. I think CC will have learned that Doc + M + F trio in the TARDIS seems to be the optimal configuration for Nu Who.

I spent most of my life in Australia watching lots of British TV. Now I am in Canada, and still watch British TV, but I am completely unaware of Bradley Walsh. I can only assume he represents a part of British popular culture I would be unlikely to watch.

@blenkinsopthebrave I know him from Coronation Street where he played a sort of Cockney guy and be was pretty good and also from Law and Order UK where he was a detective and he was quite believable in that role. He is able to do both dramatic and comedic roles as far as I can see. I don’t know how I feel about him as a companion .

Certainly. Bradley Walsh is an actor who came into the business through the ‘variety/light entertainment’ route. The shock/horror is because he’s been most successful as a quiz show/variety show host.

He is very, very good at being a quiz show host. And since he likes to work, he’s done a lot of presenter/show host work. But he has played several straight acting roles, including two years in a soap, and also including a guest role in the Sarah Jane Adventures. He’s been nominated (and won) a number of minor/popular awards for some of those straight acting roles.

I think the ‘shock, horror’ that is currently being displayed over at places like the Guardian is because he didn’t go to the right drama school (or indeed, any drama school). But then, a lot of Doctor Who leads/companions didn’t go to drama school, either. The other shock is that it’s so left field when compared to the ‘traditional’ young, usually female companion.

As I said up above, if this isn’t silly season gossip, I’d think he’s more likely to have been cast as the ‘regular, supporting’ companion rather than the main full time companion (especially since the gossip is saying that he’ll still be presenting his most popular quiz show). But I could certainly see lots of interesting possibilities if they have cast him; it’s no more left field than casting Billie Piper, Catherine Tate or Matt Lucas.

Thanks for that. It actually helps quite a lot. It would seem, from what you both say, that he has a lot of range. It makes me even more impatient for, what, Autumn 2018? (Or, if I was still in Australia, Spring 2018.)

On the suggestion that Clara may put in an appearance in Xmas special — she, too, has a date with her ending. Suppose she’s stopping by on her way back to the Trap Street, and her attitude is part of what persuades CapDoc to embrace his own “ending”?

On Clara and Xmas again: suppose she shows up, somehow, what would she say to CapDoc? That she’s on her way to Trap Street, because — been almost everywhere, seen almost everything, didn’t belong to any of it. “I miss my heartbeat. I miss the person I was before my death, so I’m going back for that last moment of being her. So long, and thanks for all the fish . . . ” Or something along those lines.

Fortunately, I’m not writing DW. I’ll need some good wine by me when Xmas comes, and I doubt I’ll be alone in that.

NOOO. I really really hope that rumour isn’t true. I was recently re watching an old BBC favourite and thinking about how much the music added to the quality of the production. It was brash, impossible to ignore but reflecting the themes of the series and in doing so was adding depth to the production and it was very memorable. Noticed when the credits rolled that the music was composed by Murray Gold. thought then about how integral his music is to the quality of AG Who.

It may just be that Murray’s after a pay rise. Announcing that you’re leaving is the traditional way of pointing out rather firmly that your contract is up and a new contract (with pay rise) will have to be renegotiated.

Or he may feel that he has, artistically, done as much as he can with Who. I realise that Murray has been brilliant (speaking as someone who has all his Who soundtracks), but the UK is developing quite a musical tradition in soundtrack composition – so it’s not as if he’d be leaving Who in the lurch.

@wolfweed Hmmm…I notice this seems to contradict the promise that “Twice Upon a Time” would be an uplifting, funny story after all the drama of “The Doctor Falls”. But if he’s referring to the special’s villain(s) — the identity of which, IIRC (I haven’t been keeping up with spoilers since the finale and only saw the trailer for “Twice”) still hasn’t been revealed — then it’s not so contradictory. Maybe the villain will be played more for comedy?

Given that it’s more likely than not the special will involve a pre-established villain, which one will it be? It can’t be the Cybermen after the Series 10 finale spent that penny, and there’s been confirmation that Missy won’t turn up. Introducing the next Master incarnation so soon would probably have fans crying foul.

That leaves:

The Daleks and possibly Davros. We never did find out what became of them after “The Witch’s Familiar”, and it’s been a loooooong time since then.

The Valeyard, if only because lots of fans still seem to want to see him. Of course, they’re old-school fans, with revival-specific viewers seeming to have little or no idea who he was.

Rassilon, though I don’t think Titan Comics would have been allowed to use him in Supremacy of the Cybermen if Moffat and co. had longer-term plans for him. Or,

The Time Lords in general, given their dirty deeds in Series 9.

That said, I think Moffat’s wrong about evil = irrational in general. Few things are easier for humans, at least, to rationalize than cruel and evil deeds. They turn up in the news every day. Kindness is what is seen as irrational now…

I notice that the U.K. papers seem to have interpreted the Moff’s comments as “the Xmas show will be grim” and/or “the Twelfth Doctor goes bad is the plot”. Why the assumption that he was talking about the Twelfth Doctor? He’s had his dark nights of the soul already and definitely been proven good! Or is this just more click bait misinterpretation? 😉

@missrori All that Moffat has hinted about Xmas is that there will be something rational about being vile and awful and evil. And that it is actually a good strategy. I think that any interpretation of ‘a dark episode’ or ’12 turned bad’ is pure speculation/misinterpretation (Click-baity or not)…….

@thane15 A quick definition for space opera is: grandiose, epic sci-fi/fantasies along the lines of John Carter of Mars, Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. The most famous contemporary one is the Star Wars saga. 🙂